D&D 5E Boop

[Fenris-77]

You're missing the forest for the trees. One, my experience of the game is mine, theres not a lot to argue with. I use strong concepts to build characters and I'm strongly class agnostic about the tools at hand. Most of my strong cleric concepts are actually better served by the Paladin class, for example, just like my preferred assassin build ismore fighter than rogue.

Two, it's not a copout, I just dont care about what WotC thinks I should be doing with class X. I'll pick whatever class works. If the concept calls for an armored caster I'll go Cleric or maybe Paladin. If I want a skill monkey I'll play a Bard and maybe ignore all the music and performance stuff. Whatever gets my concept off the ground. I'll ignore or reskin whatever needs it. The important part is that I'm always really excited about my characters.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

How so?

Sounds like a copout

So you are just as likely to play a melee lore bard as a melee tempest cleric...? Or is the difference in melee and ranged also just an incidental feeling?

So you admit clerics and bards are more suited for different concepts and stories. Doesn't that above all else show they are meaningfully different?

You really don't see it?

Damage types aside, Firebolt is a pure damage attack, while Chill Touch blocks healing but more importantly nerfs undead enemies. Now, maybe you don't play in games where enemies heal much, or where undead are a real challenge, but that just means Chill Touch isn't a good cantrip for those campaigns, which is why most DMs I've ever played with (as well as I myself) allow cantrip retraining.

And those aren't even on the outer end of difference between damage dealing cantrips. Vicious Mockery vs Create Bonfire vs Booming Blade vs Word of Radiance vs Infestation vs Lightning Lure vs Shillelagh vs Shocking Grasp vs Primal Savagery etc etc they all do much more different things than the difference between armor types and slightly more HP.

 

[FrogReaver]

So, one capability that technically deals slightly more damage, but in truth is usually considerably less, and one that deals consistently the same damage to everything, plus has an occasionally-useful special rider on it?

As it is, the two are often more distinct than the primary weapon choice for martial characters, bearing in mind that cantrips are generally less important to a caster than weapons are to a martial type.

And I think you just answered the question for why cantrips are non-meaningful differentiators while something like weapon choice can be - because cantrips are relatively unimportant to the caster.

 

[FrogReaver]

You're missing the forest for the trees. One, my experience of the game is mine, theres not a lot to argue with. I use strong concepts to build characters and I'm strongly class agnostic about the tools at hand. Most of my strong cleric concepts are actually better served by the Paladin class, for example, just like my preferred assassin build ismore fighter than rogue.

Two, it's not a copout, I just dont care about what WotC thinks I should be doing with class X. I'll pick whatever class works. If the concept calls for an armored caster I'll go Cleric or maybe Paladin. If I want a skill monkey I'll play a Bard and maybe ignore all the music and performance stuff. Whatever gets my concept off the ground. I'll ignore or reskin whatever needs it. The important part is that I'm always really excited about my characters.

I mean the more you explain the more it's aligning with my thoughts about your actions - which doesn't really align with your thoughts in this thread.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Not dismissive you say?



Please let the facts speak for themselves. You've been denying that it's possible he sees no difference between firebolt and chill touch despite him telling you multiple times he doesn't see a difference in them....

Well, no. I said that to you, not to him, for one thing.

And I apologize for my tone in that post. I lost patience for a moment, and posted rather than walking away for a bit like I should have.

As for a difference, it is literally inarguable that there is a difference, the contention is about whether there is meaningful difference. Even down to whether your main damage cantrip is a good choice to use in a given round, there is a pretty significant difference between the two, unless your campaigns all use enemies that don't have any resistence or vulnerability, and no undead or enemy healing tends to be featured, in which chill touch is just a bad choice regardless of considerations of generating differentiated play experiences.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

And I think you just answered the question for why cantrips are non-meaningful differentiators while something like weapon choice can be - because cantrips are relatively unimportant to the caster.

But cantrips generally have less variation between them than spells do. If cantrips have more distinction between each other than the martial weapon choic, don't you find that spells create even more distinctions?

 

[Fenris-77]

I mean the more you explain the more it's aligning with my thoughts about your actions - which doesn't really align with your thoughts in this thread.

Not feelin' ya here bro, you may need to get a little more granular for me.

 

[FrogReaver]

You really don't see it?

You still don't get it?

Damage types aside, Firebolt is a pure damage attack, while Chill Touch blocks healing but more importantly nerfs undead enemies. Now, maybe you don't play in games where enemies heal much, or where undead are a real challenge, but that just means Chill Touch isn't a good cantrip for those campaigns, which is why most DMs I've ever played with (as well as I myself) allow cantrip retraining.

I suppose the most apt thing to say there is that differentiation cannot be determined in a vacuum. It's not just what the ability "does", but it's how it's impacting the world around you. In a typical campaign there is little to no difference between firebolt and chill touch. In specific campaigns there might be. Just because the abilities are different in one campaign doesn't mean there is a meaningful difference between them in a typical campaign.

And those aren't even on the outer end of difference between damage dealing cantrips. Vicious Mockery vs Create Bonfire vs Booming Blade vs Word of Radiance vs Infestation vs Lightning Lure vs Shillelagh vs Shocking Grasp vs Primal Savagery etc etc they all do much more different things than the difference between armor types and slightly more HP.

I'm not lowkey. I never claimed there wasn't sufficient differentiation between many of those.

 

[FrogReaver]

But cantrips generally have less variation between them than spells do. If cantrips have more distinction between each other than the martial weapon choic, don't you find that spells create even more distinctions?

I fully do. Thus why I said Clerics and Wizards were meaningfully distinct.

 

[Fenris-77]

And I think you just answered the question for why cantrips are non-meaningful differentiators while something like weapon choice can be - because cantrips are relatively unimportant to the caster.

This is very true. The power of a full caster comes from the leveled spells. Cantrips are useful, but not particularly important past that, nor do I find a lot of interesting character choices coming out of cantrip selection. That's me though.